On Tue, Oct 23 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:58:11 +0200
> Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 23 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 23 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:23:59 +0200
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:09:33 +0200
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eh this wont work, it's the wrong entry... Here's a temporary
> > > > > > > > work-around.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-io.c b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> > > > > > > > index c89f0d3..108202b 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -822,6 +822,7 @@ void ide_map_sg(ide_drive_t *drive, struct
> > > > > > > > request *rq)
> > > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_ATA_TASKFILE) {
> > > > > > > > + sg_init_table(hwif->sg_table,
> > > > > > > > hwif->sg_max_nents);
> > > > > > > > hwif->sg_nents = blk_rq_map_sg(drive->queue,
> > > > > > > > rq, sg);
> > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > sg_init_one(sg, rq->buffer, rq->nr_sectors *
> > > > > > > > SECTOR_SIZE);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's the exact patch I'm about to boot test :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That should work - once you verify that, would you mind testing
> > > > > > this one
> > > > > > as well? Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > This one works here too, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, we avoid calling sg_init_table() for every I/O request due to Jens'
> > > > trick. And Jens will remove the code to clear sg_dma_len/addr in
> > > > blk_rq_map_sg(). So sparc64 iommu needs to do that for itself?
> > > >
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=119261920425120&w=2
> > >
> > > It does - Dave, do you agree with the patch? I think it should be added,
> > > so that sparc64 isn't the odd-arch-out in this respect. I've tentatively
> > > applied the patch, Davem?
> >
> > BTW, you sure that should not include to check whether sg_next() returns
> > non-NULL?
>
> Yeah, the following part checks that:
>
> + if (dma_sg != sg) {
Ah good, thanks for confirming.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
